Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Forbes vs Fieldcraft?

I've got a set of early Forbes rifles, one in 270 and one in 30-06 that I really like. They serve as my lightweight options for deer and elk. Accurate and nice to carry when covering uphill miles. Does anyone with experience with the Forbes and Fieldcraft care to compare the two? Anything better or worse on one or the other? I've not found one in my area to handle.

Fit/finish (especially around the safety) is better on the FC. I see the full stainless on the FC as a plus but if I already had an accurate Forbes I liked and wasn’t concerned about stainless ... not sure there is enough to compel the change. Hard to get more similar unless you were comparing a nula.
And I actually prefer the Forbes stock by a small margin....

I've had several of both and feel much the same as AKWolverine. For the same $ the Fieldcraft is a better rifle....but for the right price I'll jump on a Forbes short action with both feet. To me the biggest pro to a Forbes is the option of having Mr. Forbes rebarrel it if you want something a little different or specific, especially with the 3" mag box.

Between the long action Fieldcraft and Forbes I can find little practical difference in handling and function. My particular 3006 Fieldcraft is more accurate than my 3006 Forbes but the Forbes is still more accurate than it needs to be. I consider the Fieldcraft an updated version of the Forbes but not enough difference to switch out if I had a good Forbes.

I would however trade my 308 Fieldcraft for a 3006 any day. The short action Fieldcraft in 30 caliber just seems unbalanced compared to the long action or a Forbes (I think they were all "long action"). I do not own but have handled a 308 NULA and it was very well balanced, the best of all. Of course it is a bit more of an investment.

And the Forbes is or was made in LH the Fieldcraft which was promised in LH was never made in LH! Kinda soured me on the Fieldcraft.

I have both and have had ULA's, too. The only edge I give to the Fieldcraft, as others have said, is quality control. I also believe the Forbes used Shaw barrels, which I think are inferior to the Barrett, although they may shoot as good. And also stainless vs chrome moly, although the Forbes was offered with a stainless barrel.

ETA: Any Forbes in good shape for around $900 to $1000 is still a great deal.

I have owned two Forbes and have a Fieldcraft now. Either should be a reliable,
accurate rifle.

If both were for sale, I would probably take the cheaper of the two. If both were
the same price, I would take the Fieldcraft.

I have a very early Forbes, and have a friend with a Fieldcraft and a NULA.
I love my Forbes because it has been lucky and accurate, but I think the QC is better on the Fieldcraft. I have looked at a later Forbes, and the QC gap widens.

Crowkiller makes a good point.

Both the first Forbes I had and the Fieldcraft I now have had three digit serial numbers. Amazingly, they
are both 2xx. The comparison on fit definitely goes with the Barrett product.

I agree with what has been said so far.

They are fairly close handing-wise, and the stocks are very very similar.
The Fieldcraft is more nicely finished.
The full stainless of the F/C is handy.
The earlier Forbes usually are finished more nicely than the later Forbes, especially the non-fluted bolt models.
The earliest Forbes were allegedly finished by Melvin himself.

The only other thing that I can think of (not sure if this was mentioned) is that the F/C have pinned on bolt handles, while the Forbes has the bolt handle welded/brazed on. On my '06 F/C, the handle wiggles a tiny bit. The Forbes feels more sturdy.

I like 'em both, a lot. The same can be said for the similar Colt Light Rifle, although that has a much cheaper stock.